Recent FWC ruling examines casual employment rights and workplace obligations
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker claimed he wasn't properly notified about employment conditions that could lead to termination.
The worker argued that no one told him his job would end if he didn't complete shifts for three months.
The case brought up important questions about casual employment rights, mandatory workplace requirements, and what happens when someone doesn't take part in their own legal case.
The employer in this case was a major healthcare organisation that employed the worker as a casual nurse. Initially working as a weekly employee, he switched to casual employment in October 2022. Over the next 13 months, he worked only 17 shifts across four different locations.
The organisation's enterprise agreement defined casual employment clearly, stating these workers receive "an offer of employment on the basis of no firm commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work (e.g. relief work....)."
Their workplace policy required casual staff to work at least 16 hours monthly to remain active. The policy also specified that staff profiles would be removed if workers were unavailable for three months or more without following proper procedures.
The organisation's records showed ongoing issues with the worker's training compliance. Their workforce allocations lead provided evidence that "[the worker] had all training outstanding and [the worker] had been previously notified of this on 10 November 2023."
When checking competency records in March 2024, the organisation found the nurse hadn't completed mandatory training. They sent several notifications, warning that he would be "blocked from completing shifts until the training is complete."
Although the worker later requested access to complete the training and received it, records showed he still needed to finish these requirements before being eligible for more shifts.
According to the FWC, the Fair Work Act 2009 sets out specific protection criteria for casual employees seeking unfair dismissal remedies. For protection, casual employment must be regular and systematic, with workers having a reasonable expectation of continuing work.
The Commission explained important principles about casual employment, noting that "regular may be constituted by frequent though unpredictable engagements and that a 'systemic basis' need not involve either predictability of engagements or any assurance of work at all."
The worker's limited engagement with the legal process significantly influenced the outcome. The Commission noted: "I am satisfied that [the worker] had ample opportunity to advise the Commission of any difficulty he had with complying with the directions but made no effort to communicate."
The decision stressed that active participation matters: "numerous attempts have been made to engage with [the worker], but in the absence of any materials in support of his application or his engagement in the process, the matter has no prospect of success."
The Commission concluded by dismissing the application "for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act," demonstrating that even potentially valid claims require active participation in the legal process.
